Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has died

[AUDub 11,149]

May the Lord bless her and keep her.

Now begins the shitshow. 

[TitanTiger 20,483]

My goodness.  I rarely agreed with her.  I'm sorry for her family.  But holy crap it's about to get nuts.

[AUDub 11,149]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

My goodness.  I rarely agreed with her.  But holy crap it's about to get nuts.

This is going to get ugly fast. McConnell is going to ram one through quickly. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

This just completely changed the game for November.  And you're 100% correct that Mcconnell will ram someone through.  The literal only hope for Dems is that some of the Senators in tight races won't go along with it for fear of losing the race.  But I still wouldn't put it past them to try a lame duck appointment if they lose the WH and Senate.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

This just completely changed the game for November.  And you're 100% correct that Mcconnell will ram someone through.  The literal only hope for Dems is that some of the Senators in tight races won't go along with it for fear of losing the race.  But I still wouldn't put it past them to try a lame duck appointment if they lose the WH and Senate.

I can't imagine McConnell and Trump would let this pass without trying their best to get one through.  Probably can't get it done by Election Day, but could certainly start the process right away and confirm before the end of the year.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

My goodness.  I rarely agreed with her.  I'm sorry for her family.  But holy crap it's about to get nuts.

Exactly where I'm at. I felt my blood pressure ratchet up when I heard this. Feel for her family, and she had a remarkable run. Scalia considered her a friend, and they were on opposite sides of the political fence.

But yeah, the shitstorm is in motion.

[AUDub 11,149]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I can't imagine McConnell and Trump would let this pass without trying their best to get one through.  Probably can't get it done by Election Day, but could certainly start the process right away and confirm before the end of the year.

There's going to be a nominee before the ink on her death certificate is dry, I imagine.

 

[TitanTiger 20,483]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

There's going to be a nominee before the ink on her death certificate is dry, I imagine.

They've probably seen her as someone who could literally die at any moment and have been vetting a handful of candidates for a while now, just in case.

[AUDub 11,149]

Here is what the dems need to do. They have to go whole hog.  

If McConnell goes forward and the dems win a majority, it's war. The legislative filibuster is gone. They will absolutely pack the court. Puerto Rico and DC will become states, all but guaranteeing 4 new dem senators.

The threat needs teeth. 

[TitanTiger 20,483]

 

[AUDub 11,149]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

Yeah that's one and just one, and it carefully minced words. The lame duck session is a thing, and she'll likely fall in line if she has no cover like Collins or Romney saying "no."

[AUwent 3,752]

7 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Here is what the dems need to do. They have to go whole hog.  

If McConnell goes forward and the dems win a majority, it's war. The legislative filibuster is gone. They will absolutely pack the court. Puerto Rico and DC will become states, all but guaranteeing 4 new dem senators.

The threat needs teeth. 

I'm confused. Can you further explain what power do Dems have here? Thanks!

[TitanTiger 20,483]

7 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Yeah that's one and just one, and it carefully minced words. The lame duck session is a thing, and and she'll likely fall in line if she has no cover like Collins or Romney saying "no."

That's true.  I didn't catch that distinction.

This is such a mess.  Don't get me wrong, as a conservative I want to replace hard-core liberals on the court with someone more conservative.   But not like this.  Not when McConnell did what he did with Garland's nomination four years ago.  To do that, then to turn around and try to ramrod one through is just so low-class, low character and slimy.  

He's trying to fudge his rationale on it now.  Back then it was because "the voters should decide."  Now he says that it was because there was a Dem in the WH and a GOP controlled Senate and now the GOP has both, but that's made up BS and we all know it if we're being honest.

[AUwent 3,752]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

That's true.  I didn't catch that distinction.

This is such a mess.  Don't get me wrong, as a conservative I want to replace hard-core liberals on the court with someone more conservative.   But not like this.  Not when McConnell did what he did with Garland's nomination four years ago.  To do that, then to turn around and try to ramrod one through is just so low-class, low character and slimy.  

He's trying to fudge his rationale on it now.  Back then it was because "the voters should decide."  Now he says that it was because there was a Dem in the WH and a GOP controlled Senate and now the GOP has both, but that's made up BS and we all know it if we're being honest.

Thank you for being principled.

[AUDub 11,149]

2 minutes ago, AUwent said:

I'm confused. Can you further explain what power do Dems have here? Thanks!

Nothing yet, but if they win the senate, retain the house, and win the presidency, they can disregard all norms and wreak havoc, including packing the court.

Again, threaten like hell. **** the norms. After what McConnell did with Garland, no need to keep up the pretense of fairness. "If you do this, we will go nuts."

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

11 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Yeah that's one and just one, and it carefully minced words. The lame duck session is a thing, and she'll likely fall in line if she has no cover like Collins or Romney saying "no."

Romney will be a hard no.  He's principled enough to do that.  Collins may not need the cover.  She's running better than Trump's numbers in Maine, so going against him on this may not hurt her election chances.

One thing about McConnell: he understands the value of the Senate majority.  I don't think he takes this up until after the election.  But if the Dems win, I 100% believe he will try a lame duck appointment.

[AUwent 3,752]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Nothing yet, but if they win the senate, retain the house, and win the presidency, they can disregard all norms and wreak havoc, including packing the court.

Again, threaten like hell. **** the norms. After what McConnell did with Garland, no need to keep up the pretense of fairness. "If you do this, we will go nuts."

I wish.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

 

[AUDub 11,149]

5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

One thing about McConnell: he understands the value of the Senate majority.  I don't think he takes this up until after the election.  But if the Dems win, I 100% believe he will try a lame duck appointment.

And the solution is to say "we are packing the s*** out of of the court going forward." That threat is the only thing that can prevent such an occurrence now 

[AUDub 11,149]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

 

Let's see if he has the balls to take my suggested route. 

[johnnyAU 3,630]

Ruth was well respected and tough as nails.  She had a long and distinguished career and she'll be missed. 

[bigbird 60,533]

Like others, I didn't agree with her politically but I respect the position and the fervor in which she held it with. I hope she passed quickly and painlessly.

 

I also hope that another justice isn't forced through. If they want one, campaign on it and let the people choose which direction they want it to go.

[AUDub 11,149]

And there it is lol. 

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just saw a really interesting point.  What happens if/when election lawsuits get to the SC this cycle for mail in ballots or vote counting?  What if we have a 2000 situation?  A 4-4 tie is extremely possible.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]